劳动节的劳动感言

世界上本没公平，亦没有不公平。每个人生来都是不同的，所以其人生也应该是不同的才算正常！一切的公平与不公平都是人为的！物尽天择！事在人为！

以下专对言MM讲：

如果你建立了一个工人帝国，那么在你的帝国里，作为一个工人领袖、国家领导，你愿意你的孩子去当工人、农民吗？你能保证你的同僚们都愿意这样做吗？

1、如果你们不能，则你的工人帝国将再次分化，并且在非对称信息的条件下，产生无数的机会主义行为、逆向选择和道德风险，你的工人帝国将自动演变成官僚帝国或者贵族帝国，从而违背了你建立工人帝国的初衷。

2、你完全可以回答“能”，因为这样的回答无法证伪。如果这样，那么我请你回答：为什么斯大林、卡斯特罗、胡志明、江青、金正日......这些共产帝国的领袖们做不到？你有什么方法证明你和你的同僚们比他们强？

我想，苏联的工人阶级之所以选择叶利钦、普京，选择了沙皇的双头鹰，抛弃了马克思的镰刀斧头，自然有他们的道理。

这个道理就是：他们不希望祖祖辈辈都上当。

以下是引用仗义执言在2006-5-7 9:01:00的发言：

so what rule that you prefer to take and what rule can make it reasonable? can you tell me?

I do have my personal preference. However, I believe that a rule subject to the decision of the majority is more appropriate. For example, I'm tired of some of the fake Marxists like "万岁大中华", so if I'm a dictator of this forum, I'd rather exclude him from some serious discussions. And I'm quite sure that some Marxists here do want to exclude some neo-liberals here from discussions for the sake of enhancing the attractiveness of discussion. But under a democratic rule-making background, such expectation is not realistic at all.

However, If no rule a priori was made, democratic decision-making on the forum will simply become the tyranny of majority. You could be thrown out not because your lack of reason, but the lack of reason of the majority. Given that everybody is unreasonable sometime, and sometimes most people could become unreasonable, without the abstract rule, which regulate people's behaviour regardless of their specific identity and specific doing or undoing, everyone is confined by the irrationality of the others.

For my ideal rule-making procedure, I would like to recommend of theory of Rawls, especially the part about the "veil of ignorance". Of course, it is very easy to attack Kantianism from a Marxist perspective. But I believe Marxism itself can hardly providing any realistic suggestions about the procedure of rule-making.

以下是引用visualfoxpro在2006-5-6 23:12:00的发言：
世界上本没公平，亦没有不公平。每个人生来都是不同的，所以其人生也应该是不同的才算正常！一切的公平与不公平都是人为的！物尽天择！事在人为！

这说的还在理。

以下是引用bajjio在2006-5-7 10:45:00的发言：

这说的还在理。

伙计，这种是非不明，黑白不分的话还有道理，岂不是“强权即是公理？”

枉你还称自己怎么怎么样，嘿、嘿、嘿。。。哈、哈、哈。。。

可悲、可耻、可羞。。。

象这样的读书人，还是少点好。

以下是引用TravisBickle在2006-5-7 10:29:00的发言：

I do have my personal preference. However, I believe that a rule subject to the decision of the majority is more appropriate. For example, I'm tired of some of the fake Marxists like "万岁大中华", so if I'm a dictator of this forum, I'd rather exclude him from some serious discussions. And I'm quite sure that some Marxists here do want to exclude some neo-liberals here from discussions for the sake of enhancing the attractiveness of discussion. But under a democratic rule-making background, such expectation is not realistic at all.

However, If no rule a priori was made, democratic decision-making on the forum will simply become the tyranny of majority. You could be thrown out not because your lack of reason, but the lack of reason of the majority. Given that everybody is unreasonable sometime, and sometimes most people could become unreasonable, without the abstract rule, which regulate people's behaviour regardless of their specific identity and specific doing or undoing, everyone is confined by the irrationality of the others.

For my ideal rule-making procedure, I would like to recommend of theory of Rawls, especially the part about the "veil of ignorance". Of course, it is very easy to attack Kantianism from a Marxist perspective. But I believe Marxism itself can hardly providing any realistic suggestions about the procedure of rule-making.

Veil of ignorance is very important in the society,but it is always ignored by the people who portrays themselves "Marxist".The democracy rule has many limtiations.